What the new GCEU ruling means for design law

In the world of toy bricks, it’s often not just about creativity, but also about tough legal battles.

On January 14, 2026, the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) ruled in case T-628/24, confirming the invalidity of EU design 001050645-0003.

The Lego design, registered in 2008, shows a rectangular building block with two studs and a clamp:

In 2021, Chinese competitor Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd filed a invalidity application based on the following earlier design:

The EUIPO’s Invalidity Division declared the Lego design invalid in November 2022. The Board of Appeal upheld this decision in September 2024, whereupon Lego brought an action before the General Court.  Without success. The General Court upheld the decision of the lower courts and ruled that the interlocking brick lacked the necessary individual character.

The design was indeed novel because it differed from the earlier design in the following respects:

• two studs instead of one,
• rectangular base instead of square,
• underside with central cylindrical element,
• the “LEGO” lettering is missing in the newer design.

In addition to novelty, a design must also have individual character, however.  This is lacking if the design does not create a different overall impression on the informed user compared to an earlier design. The degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design is taken into account.

The court confirmed the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the combination of two squares results in a rectangle, so that the informed user can perceive the contested design as a continuation of the pattern established in the earlier design. The difference in the shape of the contours of the blocks is therefore to be regarded as minor.

The differences in the underside of the building block played a minor role, as these are not visible when several blocks are assembled, i.e., during normal use.

The “LEGO” lettering is perceived as a trademark and therefore contributes little to the overall impression of the design.

The most distinctive elements of the designs, namely the studs and the crescent-shaped vertical clamp, are identical in both designs.

Overall, therefore, the similarities between the younger and older designs prevailed, so that no different overall impression was created for the informed user.

The decision is made from the perspective of the informed user — who is not an expert, but a user who is not average in their attention, but has a particular alertness, whether because of their personal experience or their extensive knowledge in the relevant field — the General Court refers to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of September 4, 2025, in Case C 211/24.

Consequences for applicants and design owners

This ruling makes it clear that variants of a design, such as an extension in this case, should be submitted as a multiple application at the same time if possible, so that one variant does not later conflict with another.

The possible effects of the ruling on infringement proceedings will be interesting. This is because the protection afforded by a registered design extends to any design that does not create a different overall impression on the informed user. When assessing the scope of protection, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design is taken into account (Article 10 Regulation on Union Designs ).

Thus, as the scope of protection of a registered design is also determined by the concept of individual character, it can be assumed that design owners will use this ruling in the future, to take action against similar designs.

Conversely, the defendant in a design infringement lawsuit may counterclaim that the design is invalid, in case design variants that differ only in minor features were already known before the relevant filing date of the design.

Companies must ensure that their new products maintain sufficient distance from existing designs, not only to avoid infringement lawsuits, but also to be able to create their own legally valid property rights.